Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[rliu]

On the topic of prejudicing trials I thought the onus was more on jurors - i.e. they are told not to search for any internet articles or posts on parties to a case, did not think there would be any recourse against other anonymous commenters?

 

[slowmotion]

You did say that you found it entertaining

Fair point.

 

[Glow worm]

Alternatively, read the official government advice aimed at social media users....
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../Prejudice_and_social_media_-_infographic.pdf

View attachment 368229
View attachment 368231

While I'm not particularly bothered about individual numpty posters running the risk of falling foul of this advice it does seem a little unfair on our host (who can be seen as the publisher) being exposed.

'Catherine, Jim, Robert and Dora' - Christ, all we need is a Giles and we'd have the most middle class Government advice ever seen!

 

[srw]

'Catherine, Jim, Robert and Dora' - Christ, all we need is a Giles and we'd have the most middle class Government advice ever seen!

It *was* from the Cameron government!

 

[srw]

On the topic of prejudicing trials I thought the onus was more on jurors - i.e. they are told not to search for any internet articles or posts on parties to a case, did not think there would be any recourse against other anonymous commenters?

It's a tough call. Whose thoughts do I believe? Those put out in the name of the Government's legal advisor, or those of someone random off the internet?

 

[John the Monkey]

Metro was leading with "No Brakes but Cyclist Blames Mum he Killed" on its front page yesterday (my emphasis).

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/C2F9/production/_97331994_metro.jpg

 

[srw]

[QUOTE 4919538, member: 9609"]for commentating on an ongoing trial when not part of proceedings, well the media do it, even the BBC give this case some air time last night[/QUOTE]

They don't commentate. They report.

"In court today, so-and-so said such-and-such."

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Metro was leading with "No Brakes but Cyclist Blames Mum he Killed" on its front page yesterday (my emphasis).

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/C2F9/production/_97331994_metro.jpg

I don't think there's any contention that she died as a result of him colliding with her, the trial is to establish whether there was any criminality on Alliston's part.
You'll often see the same type of headline in a murder or manslaughter case where the accused doesn't deny the killing but denies criminal responsibility.

 

[John the Monkey]

I don't think there's any contention that she died as a result of him colliding with her, the trial is to establish whether there was any criminality on Alliston's part.
You'll often see the same type of headline in a murder or manslaughter case where the accused doesn't deny the killing but denies criminal responsibility.

Fair point.

 

[rliu]

It's a tough call. Whose thoughts do I believe? Those put out in the name of the Government's legal advisor, or those of someone random off the internet?

That pamphlet was about social media and gives examples pertaining to Twitter.
As much as we value this forum its reach and reader base is not as wide as Twitter.
I'm trying to clarify an issue, there's no need for the sarcastic retorts.

 

[Pale Rider]

That pamphlet was about social media and gives examples pertaining to Twitter.
As much as we value this forum its reach and reader base is not as wide as Twitter.
I'm trying to clarify an issue, there's no need for the sarcastic retorts.

Published remarks is the point.

It matters not how many people might or might not read the remarks, merely that a juror could read the remarks and allow the remarks to colour his view of the case.

Hence the two-pronged attack.

Jurors are told to try the case on the evidence they hear in court, and social media users are told to be careful what they write.

 

[Dan B]

That pamphlet was about social media and gives examples pertaining to Twitter.
As much as we value this forum its reach and reader base is not as wide as Twitter.
I'm trying to clarify an issue, there's no need for the sarcastic retorts.

This thread has had 7000 or so views at the time I write this post. The average Twitter user[*] has about 700 followers. I'm sure some of those thread views are from the same people, so these numbers don't compare directly, but I doubt there's more than an order of magnitude either way. Also Cyclechat is a lot more amenable than Twitter to Google searches for anything more than about 24 hours old

 

[Milkfloat]

Has anyone found the testimony from the 'Crash Investigator' to be a bit weird. He concludes that Alliston would have been able to stop if he had a front brake. He does this by saying that a mountain bike has stopping distance of about 3 meters and that this bike was four times longer at 12 meters.

As a defence barrister I would be investigating that - who cares what a MTB can stop in, why was teh test not done on Alliston's bike with a brake fitted, in fact is there even a definition of want constitutes a working front brake? I have seen some BSOs that have a front brake that would struggle to stop in 20m. I would even be debating the 12m stopping distance. Is the crash investigator a regular fixed rider? I know that on my fixed at 18 mph my stopping distance could be less than 12m without a front brake, but also it could be a lot longer.

However, I am not defending Alliston, he should have had a front brake and had he had one I assume that he may not be up in court at all, even if he did not use it.

 

[jefmcg]

I don't think there's any contention that she died as a result of him colliding with her, the trial is to establish whether there was any criminality on Alliston's part.
You'll often see the same type of headline in a murder or manslaughter case where the accused doesn't deny the killing but denies criminal responsibility.

What is he had died** after (hypothetically) stepping on the road without looking? Would you say that she killed him?

** a not unlikely scenario

 

[glasgowcyclist]

What is he had died** after (hypothetically) stepping on the road without looking? Would you say that she killed him?

** a not unlikely scenario

Don't see why not.